To overcome this I'm thinking to use a wrapper class that creates a fresh IdentityManager instance for each method invocation.
public class IdentityManagerProxy implements IdentityManager {
...
public void add(IdentityType identityType) throws IdentityManagementException {
createIdentityManager().add(identityType);
}
private IdentityManager createIdentityManager() {
return this.identityManagerFactory.createIdentityManager(new Realm(this.realm));
}
...
}
I'm still testing, but it seems we can use that.
Thanks.
Pedro Igor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shane Bryzak" <sbryzak at redhat.com>
To: security-dev at lists.jboss.org
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 6:26:55 PM
Subject: Re: [security-dev] Some thoughts on PL Subsystem
On 12/04/13 01:30, Pedro Igor Silva wrote:
> So, the updated list would be:
>> 1) Rename the attribute jndi-url to jndi-name;
> 2) Publish in JNDI an IdentityManager for each realm.
Keep in mind that each IdentityManager instance has its own
SecurityContext, which is designed to be request-scoped. If we don't
have the capacity to support request-scoped instances in JNDI, then they
should be stateless (i.e. a new instance created every time).
> 3) Support custom entities using a attribute to specify a module from
> where the @IDMEntity classes are + persistence.xml;
>> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pete Muir" <pmuir at redhat.com>
> To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> Cc: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>, security-dev at lists.jboss.org> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:22:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [security-dev] Some thoughts on PL Subsystem
>> If you come up with one, let me know - this is something no one has solved in any situation ;-)
>> On 11 Apr 2013, at 16:11, Stian Thorgersen <stian at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> I think for now we should drop the default attribute + @Realm, and only support @Resource (i.e. user has to create @Produce @Resource to be able to inject IdentityManager for sub-system). If we can think of a nice way to inject @IdentityManager allowing user to specify correct identity-management and realm that would be great, but I don't think we have an approach to this at the moment.
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
>>> To: "Pete Muir" <pmuir at redhat.com>
>>> Cc: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>, security-dev at lists.jboss.org>>> Sent: Thursday, 11 April, 2013 3:49:35 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [security-dev] Some thoughts on PL Subsystem
>>>>>> So, if you guys agree we can start working on the following improvements:
>>>>>> 1) Rename the attribute jndi-url to jndi-name;
>>> 2) Publish in JNDI an IdentityManager for each realm. That would look
>>> like this:
>>>>>> picketlink/MyIdentityManagerFactory
>>> picketlink/MyIdentityManagerFactory/default (for the default realm)
>>> picketlink/MyIdentityManagerFactory/SomeRealm
>>> picketlink/MyIdentityManagerFactory/AnotherRealm
>>>>>> 3) Add the default attribute for the identity-management element and
>>> handle it properly
>>>>>> 4) Supports a @Realm annotation in order to allow the injection of
>>> IdentityManager that maps to a specific realm
>>>>>> 5) Support custom entities using a attribute to specify a module from
>>> where the @IDMEntity classes are + persistence.xml;
>>>>>> What do you think ?
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Pete Muir" <pmuir at redhat.com>
>>> To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
>>> Cc: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>, security-dev at lists.jboss.org>>> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 11:16:14 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [security-dev] Some thoughts on PL Subsystem
>>>>>>>>> On 11 Apr 2013, at 14:35, Stian Thorgersen <stian at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> For custom entity classes I have two use cases in mind that we need should
>>>> test/support:
>>>>>>>> * Layered product that needs to use custom entity classes for sub-systems -
>>>> in this case there's no JavaEE deployments and the entity classes needs to
>>>> be within a module. It's also fairly cumbersome to create an
>>>> EntityManagerFactory from a subsystem so I don't think that should be
>>>> required
>>>>>>>> * Two applications sharing the same custom entity classes - for example
>>>> there's a main web app that contains the custom entity classes and the
>>>> persistence.xml, then there's a utility war that contains one single
>>>> @Startup @Singleton that is used to create some initial users - the
>>>> utility war would load a lot quicker than the main web app, so the EMF may
>>>> not be registered in JNDI in time
>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
>>>>> To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
>>>>> Cc: security-dev at lists.jboss.org>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 11 April, 2013 2:04:17 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [security-dev] Some thoughts on PL Subsystem
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Stian,
>>>>>>>>>> Your thoughts make a lot of sense to me. Comments inline.
>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
>>>>>> To: security-dev at lists.jboss.org>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 9:37:59 AM
>>>>>> Subject: [security-dev] Some thoughts on PL Subsystem
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've had a look at https://community.jboss.org/wiki/PicketLink3Subsystem>>>>>> and
>>>>>> also had a bit of a play with it. It's starting to look really good. I've
>>>>>> just got a few suggestions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppress logging
>>>>>> ----------------
>>>>>> At the moment there's a lot of logging at info level produced by the
>>>>>> subsystem, this is mostly Hibernate. It would be great if we could
>>>>>> somehow
>>>>>> manage to suppress this logging output, might be problematic though as
>>>>>> Hibernate logs this stuff at INFO level when it really should be DEBUG.
>>>>>> There's also a few WARN's we might want to look into fixing.
>>>>> Review the logging and messages is one of the things in our TODO list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNDI names in standalone.xml
>>>>>> ----------------------------
>>>>>> I think it makes sense to use the same format for JNDI names as the
>>>>>> datasource element, since folks will already be used to that. So I
>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>> we change it slightly to look like this:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <jpa-store data-source=”java:jboss/datasources/ExampleDS" ...>
>>>>>> <identity-management jndi-name="java:picketlink/ExampleIDM" ...>
>>>>>>>>>>>> * Full jndi name (including java:) and use jndi-name instead of jndi-url
>>>>> +1 for that. Not sure from where I got the jndi-url if the jndi-name is
>>>>> like
>>>>> a pattern used by other subsystems :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Manifest.mf
>>>>>> -----------
>>>>>> We need to make sure it works when including org.picketlink,
>>>>>> org.picketlink.idm, etc in manifest.mf as well as
>>>>>> jboss-deployment-structure.xml. The documentation should also reflect
>>>>>> this.
>>>>>> One thing I also thought of is that for the future it may be nice to have
>>>>>> something that detects PicketLink usage in a deployment and automatically
>>>>>> adds dependencies as required. For example if deployment uses
>>>>>> @IdentityManager, @Identity, etc. annotations.
>>>>>>>>>>> +1. I like the idea, ans also mark them as IDM or Core deployments and
>>>>> handle
>>>>> them properly.
>>>>>>>>>>> JNDI
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>> @Resource doesn't require CDI, so it should be possible to do the
>>>>>> following
>>>>>> without CDI (and without org.picketlink.core):
>>>>>>>>>>>> @Resource(lookup = "java:/picketlink/DevIdentityManager")
>>>>>> private IdentityManagerFactory identityManagerFactory;
>>>>>>>>>>>> I was wondering if we wanted to have the IdentityManager available in
>>>>>> JNDI
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> well?
>>>>> The problem in publishing the IdentityManager in JNDI is related with
>>>>> realms.
>>>>> If the IDM config has multiple realms which one should we put ? The
>>>>> default
>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>> Give to users the IdentityManagerFactory instead, allow them to use their
>>>>> configurations as they want.
>>>>>>>>>> One thing that I thought about that is if is a good idea to publish all
>>>>> IdentityManager instances for each configured realm. So, if the IDM config
>>>>> defines multiple realms, we publish a IdentityManager instance for each of
>>>>> them. But as we discussed this may become messy.
>>> I think this is the right approach.
>>>>>>>> What do you think ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CDI
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> I was thinking about a nice way to do the CDI support of injecting a
>>>>>> 'default' IdentityManager. I propose adding the attribute 'default' to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> 'identity-management' element (<identity-management default="true" ...>).
>>>>>> We
>>>>>> should throw a warning if a user has specified multiple, then we just
>>>>>> pick
>>>>>> one (first one?).
>>>>> I think we had some discussion about that. I'm +1 for the default
>>>>> attribute.
>>>>>>>>>> Ideally, we should throw an exception if multiple configurations are
>>>>> provided
>>>>> with the default attribute, IMO.
>>> Agreed, this should be an error.
>>>>>>>>> This does mean that if a 'identity-management' has the 'default'
>>>>>> attribute
>>>>>> set on it all deployments will by default have that IdentityManager
>>>>>> injected
>>>>>> into it. We also need a way for users to override this on a
>>>>>> per-deployment
>>>>>> basis. Can we easily detect if a deployment contains configuration for a
>>>>>> IdentityManager itself?
>>>>> The IMF can be obtained today in the following ways:
>>>>>>>>>> 1) From JNDI (@Resource, InitialContext, etc)
>>>>> 2) Providing a @Producer that produces a IdentityConfiguration. In this
>>>>> case the deployment provides its own configuration, instead of using
>>>>> the
>>>>> subsystem config.
>>>>> 3) When using the Core services, the deployment must specify a
>>>>> web.xml#resource-ref. Otherwise the deployment must provides its own
>>>>> configuration (normal usage of PicketLink Core)
>>>>>>>>>> Considering 2), if no IdentityConfiguration is produced, we can
>>>>> automatically
>>>>> choose the default.
>>>>>>>>>> Considering 3), if no web.xml at resource-ref is defined, we can
>>>>> automatically
>>>>> choose the default.
>>>>>>>>>>> Further we need to have a way for a user to specify which IdentityManager
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> inject. I think this should be done based on the 'alias' attribute and
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> the 'jndi-name', as we should leave jndi completely out of the picture
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> CDI (resource-ref in web.xml/ejb.xml should be used for JNDI lookup,
>>>>>> InitialContext#lookup and @Resource, I find it confusing to use this for
>>>>>> CDI). I propose that we use the ServiceRegistry to retrieve the
>>>>>> IdentityManagerFactory service based on the alias specified by a @Alias
>>>>>> qualifer:
>>>>> If you look at the Infinispan subsystem, this is the way it works. Using
>>>>> the
>>>>> @Resource annotation to inject cachecontainers, etc.
>>>>>>>>>> I like that because it is very simple, and requires very little from our
>>>>> and
>>>>> users side.
>>> This is also the approach the spec defines to access server resources.
>>>>>>>> We have a test case that shows how to use CDI qualifiers. It is quite
>>>>> simple.
>>>>>>>>>> But at the same time, I agree that use the name is more beautiful than the
>>>>> jndi-name :).
>>>>>>>>>> We can try that, if you want.
>>> We shouldn't do this, it encourages the CDI anti-pattern of using string
>>> based qualifiers.
>>>>>>>>> @Inject
>>>>>> @Alias(“development”)
>>>>>> private IdentityManager identityManager;
>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously users should also be able to add their own qualifiers, I think
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> should work:
>>>>>>>>>>>> @Inject @Alias(“development”)
>>>>>> @Produces @Development
>>>>>> private IdentityManager identityManager;
>>> This won't work, CDI will give you a definition error. You need to use
>>> @Resource to access server resources, or what Pedro suggests below.
>>>>>>>>> One alternative to the above is to change 'alias' to 'name' then we could
>>>>>> use
>>>>>> the standard @Named annotation instead of @Alias.
>>>>> We are not injecting the IdentityManager anymore, but the
>>>>> IdentityManagerFactory. The @Alias makes sense to get a IdentityManager
>>>>> instance for a configured realm. Maybe we should consider @Realm, instead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Custom Entity Classes
>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>> Personally I don't like the idea of custom entity classes (and
>>>>>> persistence.xml) being deployed as JavaEE deployments (i.e.
>>>>>> standalone/deployments). This is also problematic for sub-systems that
>>>>>> wants
>>>>>> to use the IDM if they need to use custom entity classes (there's a good
>>>>>> chance we'll need this for EventJuggler). I also think this will be
>>>>>> problematic if multiple deployments uses the same IdentityManager.
>>>>>>>>>>>> One idea I had was that we could create a module that contains the custom
>>>>>> Entity classes, then specify that on the 'jpa-store' element:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <jpa-store data-source=”java:jboss/datasources/ExampleDS"
>>>>>> custom-entity-module='org.company.acme.pl' />
>>> This should work IMO.
>>>>>>>>> The module 'org.company.acme.pl' would contain a single jar with the
>>>>>> Entity
>>>>>> classes. When 'custom-entity-module' is used we include that module
>>>>>> instead
>>>>>> of 'org.picketlink.idm.schema' module when creating the EMF + we should
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> able to detect the correct classes using the @IDMEntity.
>>>>> The JPA store lets you use the EMF in two ways:
>>>>>>>>>> 1) Using a embedded persistence unit. In this case you need only yo
>>>>> provide the datasource. The built-in schema (pl-idm-schema) will be
>>>>> used.
>>>>> 2) Using your own persistence unit. In this case you need to expose your
>>>>> EMF via JNDI.
>>>>>>>>>> Regarding 2), you are not forced to deploy your persistence.xml as a
>>>>> separated deployment. You can also use the persistence unit deployed with
>>>>> your application.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm going to create some tests so check a possible classloader issue when
>>>>> using custom entity classes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> security-dev mailing list
>>>>>>security-dev at lists.jboss.org>>>>>>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> security-dev mailing list
>>>>>security-dev at lists.jboss.org>>>>>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> security-dev mailing list
>>>>security-dev at lists.jboss.org>>>>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev>>> _______________________________________________
>>> security-dev mailing list
>>>security-dev at lists.jboss.org>>>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev> _______________________________________________
> security-dev mailing list
>security-dev at lists.jboss.org>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev
_______________________________________________
security-dev mailing list
security-dev at lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev